Assessment of EoI: 211

Organization: FORCERT: Forests for Certain – Forests for Life!



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 211 in Melanesia/Polynesia - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 5/5

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:NA


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: Indeed, the online scoring tool map depicts a rate > 150 t/ha, which shows that the area is highly important for climate mitigation.

Evidence B:NA


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: No data available in CI database, although the EoI emphasises on a bottom-up approach to address biodiversity and land sovereignty threats. Through work communities, the project will be assisting IPCLs to assert their stories of sovereignty and value their ecological biodiversity and cultural richness. On the other hand, by considering other external sources of information, PNG faces a number of challenges including poor law and order and complex governance arrangements that are worth taking into account for the purpose of the project.

Evidence B:NA


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:NA


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: The EoI clearly identifies relevant threats and a current risk assessment is very well developed.

Evidence B:NA


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: Nevertheless, it seems there is still an issue with the effective implementation of policy frameworks that focus on biodiversity management knowledge and involve IPCLs engagement.

Evidence B:NA


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: Several governmental programs are mentioned, demonstrating active engagement in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation in PNG.

Evidence B:NA


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:NA


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:NA



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 28/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 28/30

Average Total Score: 28/30



Performance of EoI 211 in Melanesia/Polynesia - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proposal is built from the ground up experience of working with a diversity of local communities,, with some of this community engagement experience captured in their Participatory Process of Change. The proposal appears to reflect considerable learning from experience of working closely with local community governance and decision-makers, focusing on improving the environmental, social and economic sustainability of these communities. The proposal is strongly focused on helping these communities build their capacity and capabilities to ‘fend for themselves’ in the face of development and other pressures


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proposal is strongly grounded in long experience of working with these communities, and appears realistic, and achievable, with clear objectives and a set of mutually supportive and reinforcing activities to meet the project’s aims


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:As above, although the threats are significant, especially when corruption and illegal activities are not effectively dealt with by government (and worse if they are de facto sanctioned by government!)


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proposed activities are achievable within the proposed budget. The project aims to deepen engagement with their existing communities, and scale up to include many more - to that extent the project can be tailored to available funds (ie more funding, more communities included)


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:Precise sources of co-funding are not clear. Current complementary projects have significant funding (Bread for Life USD620,000) but there does not appear to be explicit sources of co-finance identified.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proposal identifies 261,500 ha of land and sea would be covered


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:There is a specific goal of building social enterprises, and the following indicators, clearly derived from the project goals, are proposed: ü 20 new partner communities have strengthened their traditional structures, ecological knowledge and practices. ü 20 new partner communities have identified their most viable sustainable livelihood options and have included their development in their community action plan ü 20 new partner communities have increased their resilience and are promoting self-reliance through community sustainable land use and conservation management to other communities.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:While there is a strong focus on strengthening governance, building self-reliance in the targeted communities, and improving capacity to resist external development pressures, there will be a continuing need for assistance in resisting these pressures. There is an aim to develop a long-term financing plan, including social enterprise development, this is an objective rather than a plan that is in place.


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: It is also important to consider key challenges faced by PNG states in the development and implementation of their NBSAPs, which the EoI does not consider.

Evidence B:The proposal explicitly identifies that it will assist in meeting 5 of the 6 NBSAP goals, and contribute to addressing five of the nine climate change related hazards in the PNG INDC.


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:Gender mainstreaming is incorporated into their modus operandi (the Participatory Process of Change). The proponent’s own internal indicators of gender mainstreaming suggest that they ‘walk the talk’


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proposal is focused on scaling up an existing body of work, experience and network of partner communities, and there is high potential for impact at scale



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 38/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 34/40

Average Total Score: 36/40



Performance of EoI 211 in Melanesia/Polynesia - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: 2/6

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:FORCERT is established with support of Greenpeace and WWF, with both organisations being a shareholder in the company. The majority shareholding in FORCERT rests with the combined village enterprises, who receive a share in the FORCERT company once they reach their FSC status.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The organisation has a long history of working with local PNG communities to build their capacity to manage their forests sustainably, developing their participatory process of change through their on-ground experience of working closely with local communities


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proponent has 22 local community partners. The project has strong local engagement but the design, governance and drive for the project appears to come primarily from and through the proponent organisation. Implementation however is through on-ground IPLC partners.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 5/5

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proponent has considerable past experience in the project area with staff that have worked for the organisation for many years (an operations manager with them for 13 years and technical adviser for 15 years). They have a focus on indigenous community facilitation (9 facilitators) and have four staff in the Social Enterprise building internal capacity with local employees. The project builds on existing relationships and appears to have a strong foundation to build on, They have UNDP/GEF-funded project experience.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The capacity seems strong, although the one example of a large project (possibly their largest at EUR 225,733) is from 2007-09. They managed a USD 96,981 contract in 2016-17. Current funding sources, and any current co-financing are not specified.


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:FORCERT provided a social and environmental impact report for the application for a 2017 CEPF project (found on the internet) but there is no supporting information in the EOI other than YES and the fact they managed two projects in the past (CEPF and the EC)



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 26/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 23/30

Average Total Score: 24.5/30



Performance of EoI 211 in Melanesia/Polynesia - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)